Official blog of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Voter ID Day 6: Voter confusion about new law rampant

Today marked
the sixth and final day of testimony in the voter ID trial. Only the most diehard
observers and journalists were in attendance, although there will likely be a
full house again tomorrow for closing arguments.

Kicking off
today’s testimony was Olivia Thorne, president of the League of Women Voters (LWV)
of Pennsylvania and a 35-year member of the organization. The LWV is an
organizational plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Thorne testified that the LWV’s education activities around voter ID have diverted
scarce resources and time the organization planned to use on other campaigns
and advocacy work. The state’s frequent changes to the process for getting ID
have also made it complicated to educate voters, as well as expensive for the
League as they have had to reprint their materials (and will have to again) in
order to keep up with the repeated changes and clarifications issued by the
Dept. of State. More importantly, she said, these frequent changes have
confused voters.

Thorne also
talked about the LWV’s outreach to nursing homes and assisted living
facilities. Although these facilities have been empowered by the state to
produce their own IDs using an ink jet printer on 8.5 x 11 paper, almost none
so far have committed to doing so, and several have refused, according to Thorne.

The most
shocking part of Thorne’s testimony was her experience at PennDOT as she tried
to research how the agency is handling its directive to issue free IDs to those
who need them for voting. She visited the Media (Delaware County) PennDOT
office on three separate occasions over the past few months. In addition to a
complete lack of signage, the PennDOT worker was less-than-helpful when Thorne
explained she was seeking information for a friend without a birth certificate.
The PennDOT worker’s response? “Tough luck, she won’t be able to vote.”

Next up was
Deputy Commissioner Jorge Santana from Philadelphia. He works for the City
Commission, which oversees elections in Philadelphia. He testified to the
problems his office is facing in preparing for the election because of the
voter ID law.

There are 8000 poll workers in Philadelphia. While poll workers do receive
training prior to the election, attendance is not mandatory, and Santana
estimates about 20% of workers usually attend the training. Even if a higher
number of workers attend training this year in light of the new law, there will
undoubtedly be thousands of poll workers in Philadelphia alone who have had no
training on the new and complex law.

Santana also testified as to the many attempts his boss, Commissioner Stephanie
Singer, made to obtain the list of registered voters without PennDOT ID. First
requested in April, the list was not made available until almost July. The DOS
has also not provided the office with any information about the new IDs the
state has said it will be offering at the end of August.

Like Thorne
before him, Santana testified to the confusion voters have about the new law. His
office has been inundated with calls and visits from voters asking for
information and sometimes for help obtaining necessary documents such as birth
certificates for getting a PennDOT ID. Despite having no budget for this
effort, his office has mounted an outreach campaign with community
organizations to educate voters. After being asked, he testified that the DOS
has not been educating voters in Philadelphia about the law. He said he has “no
confidence” that every voter who needs an ID will have one for the election.

As for what
he anticipates happening on Election Day if the law is not overturned, Santana
said his office is “planning for a mess, to be frank.”

The final witness of the day was Professor Lorraine Minnite, associate
professor of public policy at Rutgers-Camden. She is the author of several
articles on voter fraud as well as a book, The Myth of Voter Fraud (Cornell
University Press).

Opposing
counsel objected to Prof. Minnite’s testimony, as the state has already
stipulated to the fact there is no known voter fraud in Pennsylvania. He was
overruled.

Minnite
testified to her extensive research on voter fraud over the past 12 years that
has led her to conclude that “voter fraud in American elections is exceedingly
rare.” Most of the few instances she was able to corroborate were confused
voters (such as the man who owned property in one state and lived in another
and thought he was entitled to vote in both places) rather than intentional
voter fraud. She also testified to the fact that while it might be possible to
be registered in two states at once, a voter ID law would not safeguard against
that. Much of what she testified to can
be found in her expert testimony.

The
commonwealth’s lawyer, Patrick Cawley, tried to use the common argument that
voter ID supporters like to use – “you need an ID to buy a beer.” His phrasing of the question to Minnite,
however, was telling: “...if beer requires a certain barrier to entry then voting should have at least that barrier as well?" Barrier, you say? An interesting choice of words coming from the commonwealth.

When asked
about voter ID laws as a way to “protect the integrity of an election,” Minnite
responded, “You can’t have integrity of an election unless everyone who wants
to vote gets their vote counted.”

Closing
arguments start tomorrow, Aug. 2, at 10 am. ACLU-PA Legal Director Vic Walczak
will be making the closing for the petitioners.

4 Comments:

When asked about voter ID laws as a way to “protect the integrity of an election,” Minnite responded, “You can’t have integrity of an election unless everyone who wants to vote gets their vote counted.”